However in terrorism, the killing of civillians is precisely the intention of the perpetrators. It is a hostage situation where the terrorists threaten to kill more innocent men, women and children until their demands are met. There is never any attempt to fight toe-to-toe with the enemy, terrorists just strike in the night when they can never be hit back themselves.

Although it is true that terrorism can be defined as the act of killingcivilians, the border between civilians and non-civilians can be more blurred than people think. For example, consider the new settlements being created in Israel. The settlers know perfectly well that they are living on land built on conquered territory. They know that they are going into a war zone. They are explicitly there so that Israel, if and when peace talks ever get anywhere can claim "We can't give back that area, we have settlers living there, and we developed it." Nobody makes any bones about the fact. The settlers are well-armed and know exactly what they are there for.

Given these facts, would Palestinians who attack what is quite clearly an invading civilian force (paradoxical, I know, but true nonetheless) terrorists, or merely a resistance movement, fighting against the forced occupation of their territory by a civilian force defended by the military?

"Resistance" and "terrorism" are not, as some people seem to be suggesting, alternatives in any form. The two terms are, quite simply, not in the same semantic category.

"Resistance" defines a type of conflict in terms of a broad category of aims: it implies an situation of oppression, which may be external (an invader) or internal (an oppressive regime), or some combination of the two. These are descriptions with a strong subjective element, and can and will therefore be disputed by people with differing views on what constitutes oppression in any given situation.

"Terrorism" does not define a type of conflict; it describes a method used in a conflict: the technique of attempting to achieve your aims through frightening enough of your opponent's population into accepting your demands. It would, by such definition, include random killings of civilians (and, arguably, of conscripted combatants), with the primary intention of intimidation and spreading fear but regardless of the means of delivery, but exclude actions which, to adopt that good old Gulf War phrase, cause collateral damage in the attempt to achieve a more conventional military objective. Indeed, terrorism might include actions which were intimidatory but caused no loss of life or injury at all.

There is therefore no inherent dichotomy between terrorism and resistance; a combatant can be a resistance fighter, a terrorist, both or neither.

Therefore, to refine Thomas Miconi's argument, I propose defining "civilian" as "any person not directly involved in the conflict in which the fighters are participating". In this way, to use ymelup's example, Jewish settlers in the West Bank are not considered "civilian" in the context of the dispute over the occupation of that region. Even though they are technically not employed in an armed force, they willingly and voluntarily enter the conflict, knowing and accepting their role as pawns in the game. However, by the same token, an Israeli commando stationed in Tel Aviv does not necessarily directly participate in the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in the occupied territories, and so relative to that conflict he could be considered a civilian even though he is employed in an armed force.

If the term "civilian" is defined thus, then the difference between terrorism and resistance is more clear. A resistance movement will seek to fight only those who are actively fighting them, and leave everyone else alone. If a non-combatant dies, then it is purely accidental, and never by the resistance movement's design. On the other hand, a terrorist does not care whether or not the people he harms are the people he is actually fighting against, and might even go out of his way to harm noncombatants.

In short, terrorism is not defined by one's cause, or even one's method. It is defined solely by one's targets, and the line can be clearly drawn.